• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

New ML-1 MK2

Register to hide this ad
At least they come with stands. They don't need EQ's either, But all speakers need room EQ's. The new ML's are 5 db less efficient. which only gives you 2 db more out put with 6 times power. Something is wrong there. I would rather have the original with Rogers updated crossover using Morrel dome tweeter and super tweeter. The old ML were rated at 4 feet not 1 meter. That even makes the original ML-1 as strong as the new ML MK II model. I wouldn't need to buy any thing more than a MC 152 or MC 1502, where it would take 2 MC 611's to power the new ML-1's. I always liked the way the original ML-1 sounded with the MC 275. I bet the ML-1s with that 600 watt rating is music power and not Rogers rating like the original ML1. Remember Roger use to play Rock music with a 2105 at 100 watts indicated for 24 hours before giving them that 100 watt rating. Of course the super tweeter was only rated at 10 watts RMS . The Morrel drivers he recommended as replacement drivers with his updated crossover are rated at 200 watts each as I remember. Call Steve at Audio classics if you want to upgrade your ML-1's or XR-7's. 19601067_10154759388223963_6790387893717673704_n.jpgIMG_2587.jpg
 
I trust Rogers rating for the XR and XRT speakers, but anyting newer only half the rating. Charlie Randle took out woofers on XRT-IK line arrays with 601's at a San Francisco show. So I take the 1200 watt rating with a grain of salt. 600 watts is more like what the rating should be. Remember those 600 watts amps can put out 850 watt peaks and over 750 watt RMS all day long. The new 611 even more. Hi fi News said closer to 1000 watts than 900. Fortunately right now I am using only 3 watts with MC 830s' driving my XRT 28's. Great back ground music with Chanticleer Singing.
 
Mcintosh speakers with the ML series and XR series always seemed to me to be trying to catch up with the capabilities of Mcintosh amplifiers. The professional market was demanding larger and more powerful amplifiers up through the 2600. There were always commercial versions of the consumer amps. 2120 or 2250 for example. Then Mcintosh started pulling away from professional markets with the introduction of the 7000 series by no longer making professional versions. Professionals wanted light weight amps and they accepted the compromised sound of class D amplifiers while Mac customers did not at the time. So it wasn't until the XR 290 came along that the speakers finally caught up with the Mac amps demanding 1000 watts per channel. Why so much power. Basically to outperform a Klpschorn using 100 watts. Remember a Klipschorn using 100 watts is compromising the dynamic range by 4 db. So a Klipschorn rated at 104 db 4ft 1 watt was only capable of 120 db output and only down to 35 hz or so, where a XR 290 would go an octave lower. With the new woofer design by Carl Van Elder the distortion of the Mac woofers was significantly lower than the Klipsch speakers also. This was through out the entire audio spectrum with the 290. Klipsch had another weakness the tweeter. Only cable of 105 to 106 db. When electronic instruments became popular in the days of disco in the 70's Klipsch tweeters like everyone elses were failing right and left. Only Mcintosh and Infinity among a very few others had solutions. Mac has been making the same 2K amplifier for years with out the updates the smaller amps have enjoyed. So today I see the horse race being pretty even though some might say the speakers are ahead at this point with the amps catching up. Where before it was the amps in the lead with the speakers trying to catch up.

If I had a pair of 2K or 2.1K speakers, the new MC 1.25K amp would be all I would want or need. With close to or over 2000 watt peak capability thats all you will ever need for the latest 2k speakers. If a 1.25K amp will put out 30% more than rated like most Mac basic power amps, that works out to be close to 1600 RMS watts. Thats got to be enough .

There was a time when the 2600 was King of the Mcintosh castle. But then Charlie came along with the idea of quad balanced amps. Was he first with the idea or was Accuphase first. Doesn't matter to me. But when that MC 501 was introduced things changed at Mcintosh and with reviewers and consumers. It seemed that Mac was no longer back in the shadows depending on repeat buyers and the good old boy network.. It was a rebirth of Mcintosh with them proving Autoformers were essential to the great performance of Mac amps and they didn't compromise the performance of the amp . Reviewers had to admit that Mac was a viable todays product and not something from the past anymore. Thank You Charlie Randell.
 
Last edited:
62caddy said:
I get the impression that these and other Mc speakers are generally designed to be power-hungry for use with the high power equipment the company is famous for.
Click to expand...

When I had the XR5's the more power I threw at them the better. And a large space was mandatory.
 
twiiii said:
There was a time when the 2600 was King of the Mcintosh castle. But then Charlie came along with the idea of quad balanced amps. Was he first with the idea or was Accuphase first. Doesn't matter to me. But when that MC 501 was introduced things changed at Mcintosh and with reviewers and consumers. It seemed that Mac was no longer back in the shadows depending on repeat buyers and the good old boy network.. It was a rebirth of Mcintosh with them proving Autoformers were essential to the great performance of Mac amps and they didn't compromise the performance of the amp . Reviewers had to admit that Mac was a viable todays product and not something from the past anymore. Thank You Charlie Randell.
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting perspective. And quite accurate indeed.
 
Another thought. The original ML series were on the warm side from 160 HZ down. Turn down the bass in that region and they are much more revealing like the newer speakers. But with Mac using the LD mids and Woofers Carl Van Elder designed way back when for the XR 250 and 290 while being Rogers's assistant the new ML-1 should be more revealing. Add 2 db here remove 2 db there and the quality of a speaker can change tremendously, also. Go to Rogers website and read about what he and Carl experienced after the development of the new woofers. But is the difference worth $11000.00 after upgrading an original pair of ML-1's. And contrary to what you read all speakers improve using EQ's to correct for room and speaker interaction anomalies. Thats why Mac produces the MEN 220.
 
I have a pair of XR100's, there are paired with 501's and a C46. I rarely increase the volume and they are perfect for my room with great sound stage. They also blend into my room so my wife does not notice them, (because they are black). Prefect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
MAC speaker equalizer question
Replies
10
Views
1K
twiiii
twiiii
sKiZo
New McMac Incentives
Replies
3
Views
514
sKiZo
sKiZo
Gregory
ML-2 cabinet remake
Replies
2
Views
703
Gregory
Gregory
VonDrake
Vintage McIntosh ML-2C Speakers Ported?
Replies
7
Views
1K
62caddy
62caddy
K
New Mcintosh in-wall speakers WS500 and WS300
Replies
0
Views
618
Kevin M.
K
Back
Top Bottom